The Priesthood of Christ, according to the Apostle Paul and the types of the Jewish ritual, is divided into two parts: the atonement which he made to divine Justice, and his intercession in heaven, (1 John ii. 2, I Heb. ix. 12.) The necessity of such an atonement, Il which is the foundation of all practical piety and all Christian hopes, must therefore be firmly established, and defended against the fiery darts of Satan, with which it is attacked by innumerable adversaries.
Upon this subject, the opinions of divines may be classed under three heads: 1. That of the Socinians, who not only deny that an atonement was made, but affirm that it was not at all necessary, since God both could and would pardon sin, without any satisfaction made to his justice. 2. That of those who distinguish be- tween an absolute and a hypothetieal necessity; and in opposition to the Socinians maintain the latter, while they deny the former. By a hypothetical ncees- i sity they mean that which flows from the divine decree. j God has decreed that an atonement is to be made, therefore it is necessary. To this they also add a necessity of fitness; as the commands of God have been transgressed, it is fit that satisfaction should he made, that the transgressor may not pass with impu- nity. Yet they deny that it was absolutely necessary, as God, they say, might have devised some other way I of pardon than through the medium of an atonement. This is the ground taken by Augustine in his book on the Trinity. Some of the reformers who wrote before 3. That of those who maintain its absolute necessity; the time of Socinus, adopt the opinions of that father. affirming that God neither has willed, nor could have willed to forgive sins, without a satisfaction made to his justice. This, the common opinion of the orthodox, is our opinion.
ITS NECESSITY. - 15 Various errors are maintained on this point, by our opponents. The removal of the grounds upon which they rest will throw light upon the whole subject. I They err in their views of the nature of sin, for which asatisfaction is required; of the satisfaction itself; of the character of God to whom it is to be rendered; and of Christ by whom it is rendered.
1. Of sin, which renders us guilty, and binds us over to punishment as hated of God. It may be I viewed as a debt which we are bound to pay to divine justice, in which sense the law is called “a hand-wri- ting,” (Col. ii. 14:) as a principle of enmity, whereby we hate God and he becomes our enemy: as a crime against the government of the universe by which, before God, the supreme governor and judge, we be- come deserving of everlasting death and malediction. Ii Wlence, sinners are expressly called “debtors,” (Matt. vi. 12); “enemies to God,” both actively and pasIl sively, (Col. i. 21); “and guilty before God,” (Rom. iii. 19.) We, therefore, infer that three things were necessary in order to our redemption; the payment of the debt contracted by sin, the appeasing of the divine wrath, and the expiation of guilt.
2. From the preceding remarks, the nature of the satisfaction which sin requires may be easily perceived. criminality, satisfaction has relation to the penalty That which we are chiefly to attend to in sin being its
Ri = —— 16 TURRETTIN ON THE ATONEMENT. But here we must attend to a twofold payment, which is noticed by jurists. One which, by the very deed I of payment, sets at liberty the debtor, and annuls the obligation, whether the payment is made by the debtor in his own person, or by a surety in lis name. An- other in which the bare fact of payment is not suffi- cient to liberate the debtor, because, the payment 18 not precisely that which is demanded in the obligation, but an equivalent. In this case, though the creditor has a right to refuse the acceptance of such payment, yet if he admits it and exteems it a payment, it is a sat- isfaction. The former of these takes place in a peeuniary, the latter in a penal debt. Ina pecuniary transaction, the fact of the payment of the sum due frees the debtor, by whomsoever the payment is made. Respect here is had, not to the person paying, but to y the payment only. Whence, the creditor, having been I paid the full amount due, is not said to lave treated with indulgence the debtor, or to have forgiven the debt. But in penal matters the case is different. 3 The debt regards not things, but persons; not what is i paid. so much as him who pays; i. c., that the trans- I gressor may be punished. For as the law demands individual personal obedience, so it demands indi- vidual personal suffering. In order that the guilty person may be released through an atonement matle
dil _ nITS NECESSITY. 17 a judge is, in relation to the law, called relaxation, and in relation to the debtor or guilty person, pardon; for his personal suffering is dispensed with, and in its place a vicarious suffering accepted. But because, in the subject under discussion, sin has not a relation to debt only, but also to punishment, satisfaction is not of that kind, which by the act itself frees the debtor. To effect this there must be an act of pardon passed by the Supreme Judge, because that is not precisely paid, i. e., a personal enduring of the penalty, which the law demands, but a vicarious suffering only. Hence we discover how perfectly accordant remission and satisfaction are with each other, notwithstanding the outer made by the enemy respecting their sup- posed discrepancy. Christ made the satisfaction in his life and at his death, and God, by accepting this satisfaction, provides for remission. The satisfaction respects Christ, from whom God demands a punishment, not numerically, but in kind, the same with that which we owed. Pardon respects believers, who are freed from punishment in their own persons, while a viearious suffering is accepted. ITence we see how admirably mercy is tempered with justice. Justice is exercised against sin, and mercy towards the sinner; an atonement is made to the divine justice by a surety, and God mercifully pardons us.